News-Record.com

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ei/1968/

Did you know that in 1968 -- the United States, 96.4 percent of the people were working?

Did you know that GDP was up 5 percent?

The stock market was at record highs, and I'm confident WAY more than 97 percent of mortgages were being paid on time.

POINT: All that rises, must fall, and one can only play with a house of cards for so long. Write back in a few years, Don - but the irony is, the next admistration will take the fall.

A few days ago, a co-worker wanted to know whom I wanted to be the next president. I said "GW Bush. He has mucked it up so bad, let him wallow in his own swill".

"It is time to report the other side of these headlines."

Not yet, Don. A hopeful media is withholding judgement on the state of the economy, the war on terror, and a host of other issues until after the november election.
If their horse wins, we'll see the other side of the coin.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2004/jobs_study/sr20041014b.asp

Much like the war, now that it appears* to be going better, this paper is not printing all the like that came off of the left wing web sites. The Danville, Va paper had a good story on this today.
*Appears to be going better, I have no clue, I have not been there. Necon you are again on the money. When the stock market had a small correction, the liberal media, was screaming the Bush economy. JDR if you are stupid enough to buy a house you can not pay for, how the hell do you blame it on someone else?

JDR,

I have to admit that I do not understand your logic. If things are so bad under GWB, why would you want him another four years to wallow in his own swill? Have you thought that you would be wallowing in his swill with him? Strange logic, or really no logic at all.

"POINT: All that rises, must fall, and one can only play with a house of cards for so long. Write back in a few years, Don - but the irony is, the next admistration will take the fall."

I read that comment, and the first thing that I thought was how well that applied to when GWB took over in 2000 for Bill Clinton, as the economy was on the slide and the .com bust was happening.

Don,

The economy is doing very well, considering that we are in the sixth continuous year of economic expansion. However, some of your numbers are off.

Right now, less than two-thirds of the population is working (http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm). The 4.7 percent unemployment rate is only measured among people who are "in the labor force" (people working or looking for work). Many people, including students, stay-at-home parents, severely disabled people, and retirees, are not in the labor force.

Also, the mortgage default statistic sounds good until you realize that the historical average has been closer to 99 percent.

To your positive numbers, you should add some concerning ones, such as the savings rate, which is less than one percent (http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.htm), and the national deficit.

JDR,
Spot ON!

He has urinated in the well, now he should have to drink from it. Unfortunately, we still have to live in the country he put on a path to ruin. The pendulum has not swung far enough, as witnessed by the "Bush is Deity" crowd that posts here. Amazes me how some of these people can actually believe the things they say. I don't hate George Bush, I actually pray for him. He is nothing short of a puppet of powerful people who are afraid of losing their power.

On a similar topic, where would a third term Bush get his "talent"? He's already tapped out the Regent University Law School, and Bob Jones University doesn't graduate enough people to fill the administration, so where would they come from?? Maybe Paige Patterson could be his AG!
What a joke.

`

Demon,

You actually pray? Somehow, I never thought of you as a praying person. Interesting.

Canuck prays for W...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, all news is bad news for the press--that is to say, news is definitionally bad, especially where the economy is concerned--but I suspect that neocon is correct in assuming a slant to news reporting on the matter (that is, a stronger emphasis on bad news under Republican administrations).

On the wallowing in swill point, do note that Bush inherited Clinton's recession and was blamed for being gloomy about recognizing it at the time. (Although it wasn't Clinton's recession, really--recessions are part of the natural business cycle.)

Statistics are always skewed to the perspective of the person quoting them. An example would be reporting "Average Income" instead of "Median Income". Averages are not very useful, the Median value is a better indicator of where the overall economy is heading.
Yet blaming/crediting Bush or Clinton is illogical as presidents have little actual control over the economy. Strangely, we have far more power as consumers than the president. In the capital-based economy, Democracy rules. You vote with your money.
In a capital-based economy, there are always corrections. During the Clinton administration, the correction was due to "irrational exuberance" of the DotCommers. In the Bush era, the problem has been the same, but with real-estate as the focus. Partisans on both sides seem to blame the president from the other side in attempts to score some political points. This is not useful nor a valid part of the political debate.
I suggest offering a solution or two. Perhaps we could use our school systems for a practical purpose: teach fundamentals of financial decision making throughout a student's education. We should make basic financial education (bank account management, understanding mortgages, understanding interest, reading fine print, etc.) a requirement for graduation from High School.
It would not hurt to write contracts in English instead of legal jargon.

There are elements of the economy that are influenced by government action such as fiscal policy, monetary policy, bank regulation, etc. So we shouldn't let officials completely off the hook.

Bush's presidency has been accompanied by a tremendous growth in public and personal debt. The public debt has grown mostly as a result of tax cuts and an ill-advised (and unfinanced) war. Private debt has grown from a loose money policy (very low interest rates) and from a lax regulatory environment. Bush--and to some extent the Federal Reserve--deserve a share of criticism for these aspects of policy.

When the economy eventually tanks, these short-sighted policies will come back to bite us. Some of the short-sighted debt policies are already having an effect.

verelse,

You actually want our public schools to teach and educate students? Surely, you must be kidding. And, why bother printing contracts in English, when so many students leave high school as functional illiterates?

John Hood had a good column in the HPE today regarding the state of our public schools. His analysis showed that:

1) the average scale score in reading for American 17-year-olds has not changed since 1971,
2) the average scale score in math for American 17-year-olds has not changed since 1971,
3) the average graduation rate for American high-school freshmen has not changed, and
4) average spending per student in U.S. public schools, including both operational and capital expenditure, was an inflation-adjusted $5,257 in 1971. By 2004, spending per student had more than doubled to $11,016.

In other words, despite all the additional taxpayer money plowed into U.S. public schools, there is no evidence whatsoever of any significant improvement in public education’s ability to produce well-educated high-school graduates. All this time, politicians have assured us that “reforming” education would improve the economy. Guess not.

"Private debt has grown from a loose money policy (very low interest rates) and from a lax regulatory environment."

Dave, are you suggesting the govt. is responsible for the housing foreclosure mess? Are people too stupid to understand the term "adjustable rate mortgage"? Do they need the govt. to decipher this term for them? To me the term means it's a mortgage and the rate is adjustable!!

You also pin the public debt "mostly" on two events: tax cuts and the war. I will agree 1) the public debt is atrocious and; 2) the war isn't cheap. I will disagree that these two events are to be singled out as cause of public debt. Govt. spending increases every year regardless of who is in office.

If you favor tax increases, how much and for whom?

http://content.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2006/10/income.html

That top 1% of earners pay 37% of all the federal individual income taxes collected. The bottom 50% of earners pay just 3% of those taxes.

It is amazing!! My topic of discussion was about reporting ALL the information pertaining to news. I did not expect it to be turned upside down and turned into political mudslinging. Why on earth is it so hard to look at what I wrote and debate the reporting not who's fault or who should deserve credit for the economy. I know economies are cyclical and things change- I am well aware of that. If we all concentrate on the down side of economics, we would never be able to have a productive work force. I was attempting to have a debate about reporting not just some of the news, but all of the news. Thats all FOLKS!!!!

I forgot to add one thing! Happy New Year and may you have a prosperous one, except for those who CHOOSE - only see the downside of our economy.

You haven't seen anything Don, historically this blog can go anywhere. Consider yourself lucky your letter hasn't morphed into reduced Antarctic penguin sperm production due to global warming. I thought this thead stuck fairly well on topic as compared to many others. Join in often.

�JDR if you are stupid enough to buy a house you cannot pay for, how the hell do you blame it on someone else?�

When did I say that? You�re making stuff up, doggie.

ORR � the logic goes like this:

We agree: things are NOT so bad under GWB ... but that because he is spending money like a pissing race horse. Have you seen the deficit and debt numbers? It�s very easy to keep whatever economy you have stoked by printing money or selling assets too cheap. In fiscal year 2005, the federal government spent $2.47 trillion � 49% more than it spent in fiscal year 1995 (after adjusting for inflation). One can live very well on a credit card � but eventually the bills come due.

This is the exact same ploy Nixon used. Even Limbaugh agrees with me: �This administration reminds me of Nixon," he told his radio audience. "He's following Richard Nixon's footsteps on domestic policy" by pumping up federal spending for any group whose votes can be bought.�

Dan:

Is the govt. is responsible for the housing foreclosure mess?

Not directly .. but the President weilds more power than you or I can imagine .. and all it takes is a few phone calls, and they also have the bully pulpit. I defy you to find a single cautionary word from "the govt.".

Why not speak out? Because the overheated housing market has kept this economy affloat for the past 5 years .. and heaven forbid they would risk loosing that. The real problem is the house of cards sunk before the 2008 election.

Here�s the current housing scenario: Using very unconservative financial tools, the mortgage industry sold a bunch of stupid Americans .. who should have known better l grant, but regardless ... a bunch of Americans made poor decisions on their mortgages. The mortgage and banking industries fed into this fever and as a result lost a bunch of paper money.

Meanwhile housing values drop a bunch .. and who buys these houses? Those that are unaffected by the market .. the wealthiest one percent, who own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, buy low and later sell high.

Think old man Potter in "It�s a Wonderful Life". Legal? Sure. Moral and Ethical? Maybe. Will Jesus forgive Potter? According to the Catholics, yes if he confesses on his death bed (a religious belief I have trouble believing Jesus believed) � but for all his money, old man Potter was a miserable cuss.

One more, then off to work:

"That top 1% of earners pay 37% of all the federal individual income taxes collected."

True.

Also true: The top 1% of earners also own more wealth than the bottom 90%.

How did they get that wealth? "Insider" trading ... including inheritance and tax favors. The Tax Policy Center cites a person earning $1 million a year saves $24,000 in taxes under President Bush's 2003 Bush�s Economic Stimulus Plan, while a person earning $50,000 a year saves $76.

Whoopie ..

Don Wendelken:

"If we all concentrate on the down side of economics, we would never be able to have a productive work force."

Bull. When we have meaning work (or highly compensated repetative tasks), we have a productive work force. It seems we're striving for the opposite.

Thats all FOLKS!!!!